DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 08/10/2026 has been entered.
The rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintained (see below).
The rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawal in view of amendment.
Claims 21-22, 24-25, 27-29, 32-33 and 37-40 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-40 are pending, of which claims 21, 32 and 40 are independent claims.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments filed on 08/10/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments for 101 rejection:
Argument A. applicant argues regarding to 101 step 2A prone one that “the Office's analysis does not- and cannot- identify any portion of Applicant's Specification that would support its conclusion that a user could perform, via pen and paper or in the mind, any of the actual elements recited by Applicant's independent claims”, specifically, “"obtain first data characterizing an inquiry[,] . . . transmit structured message data, receive the response to the inquiry and present at least a portion of the response" as a "mental process."”. Examiner respectfully disagree because with the broader limitations in the independent claims, data collecting, analyzing and encrypting data (i.e. obtain first data characterizing an inquiry), building a structured message with the obtained data and send inquiring (structured message data) and receiving the response to the inquiry and present at least a portion of the response are the actions a human can do without claiming the algorithms and methodologies. Therefore, it’s an abstract idea that satisfies M.P.E.P. §§ 2106.07 and 2106.07(a).
Argument B. applicant argues regarding step 2A prone two that “Applicant's claims are nevertheless integrate allegedly recited abstract idea into a patent-eligible, practical application “because "facilitate[s] a secure resolution of a presented customer inquiry based on a cryptographically secure, structured email message that includes elements of encrypted data associated with the inquiry interlaced with corresponding elements of 'dummy' data" improves technology that improves a data security of existing, computer-implemented inquiry resolution processes. Examiner respectively disagree because data encryption and scrambling technology is used many years ago by human such as telegram. Simply using generic computers to transmit secure data doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The amendment added more detail for how a first data is scrambled into a second data which is still a mental process that is abstract.
Argument C. applicant argues regarding step 2A prone two that “Applicant's claims are not directed to an abstract idea and, instead, recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101”, examiner respectively disagree for the reasons discussed above.
Therefore, the 101 rejection ia maintained.
Regarding to applicant’s arguments for 103 rejection, they are essentially directed towards the newly introduced limitations and they are addressed in this Office Action, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applying the subject matter eligibility test, as outlined in MPEP 2106:
Step 1: Statutory Category
The claims fall within a statutory category. Claims 21-31 and 40 are considered “machines” based claims and claims 32-29 are considered “processes”. Both machines and processes are members of the statutory categories. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2A, prong one of the subject matter eligibility test.
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception
The claims recite a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea. For example, claims 21, 32 and 40 recite:
obtain elements of first data characterizing an inquiry, and encrypt … interlace data …;
transmit structured message data …
receive the response to the inquiry and present at least a portion of the response ….
The steps performing amount to an abstract idea which falls under a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1, of Subject Matter Eligibility). The abstract idea falls in the categories of a mental process, for evaluation, judgments, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) & MPEP 2106.06). For example, the courts found that the claim “related to system to monitor access to protected health information in which a rule is created, an audit log is compared with the rule, and a notification is provided if rule is fulfilled”, was directed to an abstract idea of detecting misuse in a computer environment based on analysis log files, while also finding that the claims simply automated a process that was commonly performed without computers in the past. Furthermore, the court found that the claims simply related to the collection and analysis of data is an abstract idea in which there is not inventive concept, and there are no details in the claim that describe an improvement to existing computer technology, Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys, Inc., No. 15-1985 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2A, prong two.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements, such as a processor, memory, a communications interface and a digital interface do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. The additional steps recite at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of obtaining and transmitting and present data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the analysis moves towards step 2B.
Step 2B: Inventive concept
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements such as a processor, memory, a communications interface and a digital interface amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There is no indication in the claim or specification of any unconventional arrangement of these elements, any technical improvement in their operation, or any other feature that amounts to an “inventive concept” or “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.
Under the Mayo/Alice framework and MPEP 2106, the claim therefore recites an abstract idea and does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than that abstract idea. Claim is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to dependent claims 22-31 and 33-39, the additional limitations do not change the characterization of the claims as being directed to an abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more, as explained below.
Regarding Claims 22 and 33:
Adds determining an inquiry type, obtain template data associated with the inquiry type, and perform operations that populate the template data. This merely recites iterative refinement of conventional functions of analyzing data and populating the analyzed data, using generic computing system, and thus does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claims 23 and 34:
Adds generating a hexadecimal representation of the encrypted interlaced data; and perform operations that populate the template data using the generated hexadecimal representation of the encrypted interlaced data. This does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 24:
Specify that the first data comprises identifier and temporal data and perform operations that populate the template data with the portions of the encrypted interlaced data, the identifier, and the temporal data. This does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claims 25 and 35:
Add generating the encryption key and obtain the second data based on an index value associated with the first data. This does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claims 26 and 36:
Add obtaining salt data, generating the encryption key and encrypting the interlaced data using the encryption key and the salt data. This does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claims 27 and 37:
Specify that the first data comprises an identifier and temporal data and compute the index value based on at least one of the identifiers or the temporal data. This does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claims 28 and 38:
Specify that the first data comprises inquiry data associated with the inquiry and the interlaced data further comprises portions of the inquiry data disposed within the second data. This does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claims 29 and 39:
Add obtaining elements of scheme data, generating the interlaced data based on the textual content and the inquiry data in accordance with the scheme data. This does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 30:
Specify that an input unit coupled to at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to receive at least a portion of the inquiry data via the input unit. This does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim 31:
Add determining that a structure or a composition of the inquiry data fails to correspond to an expected structure or composition; and based on the determination that the structure or composition of the inquiry data fails to correspond to the expected structure or composition, perform operations that present an error message within the digital interface. This does not change the abstract character of the idea or add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-22, 24-25, 28, 30, 32-33, 35, 38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudoin et al. (20170104731, hereinafter Baudoin) in view of Larsen (US 2018/0032599) and Kwon et al. (CN102439968B, hereinafter Kwon).
Regarding claim 21: Baudoin teaches: An apparatus, comprising:
a communications interface; a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the communications interface and to the memory (Baudoin - [0094]: Computing device 1450 includes a processor 1452, memory 1464, an input/output device such as a display 1454, a communication interface 1466, and a transceiver 1468, among other components), the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to:
encrypt, using an encryption key, interlaced data … (Baudoin - [0030]: The computing system 200 may include an encrypter 206. The encrypter 206 may encrypt portions and/or fields of messages, and/or keys, using encryption keys. See also [0049]).
structured message data that includes the encrypted interlaced data to a first computing system (Baudoin - [0049]: The computing system 200 may have received the message 300 via the electronic network 106, which may be the Internet. The message 300 may include a header 302, an encrypted symmetric key 304, and an encrypted body 306.);
However, Baudoin doesn’t explicitly teach but Larsen discloses:
obtain first data characterizing an inquiry (Larsen - [0025]: the browser application of client device 106 may send a webpage request 108 to server 104, to request certain webpage data), and
transmit, via the communications interface, structured message data that includes [the encrypted interlaced data] to a first computing system, the structured message data comprising information that causes the first computing system to obtain a response to the inquiry from a second computing system (Larsen - [0029]: webpage request 108 sent by client device 106 to server 104 may, in some cases, pass through intermediate device 112 (e.g., either directly or rerouted to intermediate device 112 for analysis). In turn, intermediate device 112 may forward request 108 on to server 104); and
receive the response to the inquiry from the first computing system via the communications interface, and perform operations that present at least a portion of the response within a digital interface (Larsen - [0029]: In response to receiving webpage request 108, server 104 may then send webpage data 110 back through intermediate device 112 for display by the browser application of client device 106).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baudoin with Larsen so that inquiry and response are transmitted via intermediate device and the response can be displayed in client device. The modification would have allowed the client to communicate with server through an intermediate device.
However, the combination of Baudoin and Larsen doesn’t explicitly teach but Kwon discloses interlaced data comprising portions of the first data elements disposed at corresponding position among elements of second data (Kwon - [0077]: data pre-processor 100 inserting known data into the proper position, so that the known data can be placed in the head/tail area.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baudoin and Larsen with Kwon so that the first data can be inserted into the second data at the proper position. The modification would have allowed the client to preprocess the data for transmission
Regarding claim 22: Baudoin as mo+dified teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
based on the first data elements, determine an inquiry type associated with the inquiry (Baudoin - [0037]: The headers 226 may include a from field identifying a sender, such as an email address of the sender, a to field identifying a recipient, such as an email address of the recipient, and/or a subject field indicating a subject of the message);
obtain, from the memory, template data associated with the inquiry type, and perform operations that populate the template data with portions of the encrypted interlaced data (Baudoin - [0072]: the method 1100 may further include responding to a request to read the message by retrieving the header and the decrypted body from the long-term storage and displaying the header and the stored decrypted body).
Regarding claim 24: Baudoin as modified teaches: wherein:
the first data elements comprise an identifier and temporal data (Baudoin - [0043]: The long-term storage 224 may store identifications (IDs) of recipients 238 of the messages. The IDs of the recipients 238 may be included in the messages, such as in the CMS headers 236, and may be associated with the symmetric keys 232 used to encrypt the bodies of the messages); and
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform operations that populate the template data with the portions of the encrypted interlaced data, the identifier, and the temporal data (Baudoin - [0049]: The parser 202 may parse the received message 300 into the header 302, the key, which may be the encrypted symmetric key 304, and the body, which may be the encrypted body 306).
Regarding claim 25: Baudoin as modified teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate the encryption key (Baudoin - [0050]: The symmetric key 304 may have been randomly generated by a sender of the message 300) and obtain the second data elements based on an index value associated with the first data elements (Baudoin - [0046]: The public keys 244 may be associated with recipients of messages according to a PKI infrastructure. The computing system 200 may store public keys 244 associated with persons who have accounts associated with an administrator of the computing system 200, or may retrieve public keys).
Regarding claim 28: Baudoin as modified teaches: wherein:
the first data elements comprise inquiry data associated with the inquiry (Baudoin - [0033]: input from a user, such as a request to read the message); and
the interlaced data further comprises portions of the inquiry data disposed within the second data (Baudoin - [0037]: The headers 226 may include a from field identifying a sender, such as an email address of the sender, a to field identifying a recipient, such as an email address of the recipient, and/or a subject field indicating a subject of the message. In some example implementations, the subject field may be stored as part of the body of the message).
Regarding claim 30: Baudoin as modified teaches: further comprising an input unit coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to receive at least a portion of the inquiry data via the input unit (Baudoin - [0033]: in response to instructions and/or input from a user, such as a request to read the message).
Regarding claims 32-33, 35 and 38: Claims are directed to computer-implemented method claims and do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 21-22, 25 and 28. Therefore, claims 32-33, 35 and 38 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 21-22, 25 and 28.
Regarding claim 40: this claim defines a computer-readable medium claim that corresponds to system claim 21 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 21. Therefore, claim 40 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 21.
Claims 23 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudoin et al. (20170104731, hereinafter Baudoin) in view of Larsen (US 2018/0032599), Kwon et al. (CN102439968B, hereinafter Kwon) and Dawson (Pub. No.: US 2016/0283744).
Regarding claim 23 and 34: Baudoin as modified doesn’t explicitly disclose but Dawson teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
generate a hexadecimal representation of the encrypted interlaced data (Dawson - [0060]: The encrypted data “PW” is converted into a hexadecimal representation of the encrypted data by the security controller manager module 135); and
perform operations that populate the template data with the hexadecimal representation of the encrypted interlaced data (Dawson - [0053]: the extraction requires the password extraction module 155 to re-compile the sensitive data from the different portions extracted from the pblock 116 a. Optionally, if the sensitive data is encrypted, the encryption/decryption module 130 can decrypt the sensitive data before it is presented to the user).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baudoin with Larsen, kwon and Dawson so that a hexadecimal representation of the encrypted data is generated for storage and retrieving. The modification would have allowed the system to store data in hexadecimal representation.
Claims 26-27 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudoin et al. (20170104731, hereinafter Baudoin) in view of Larsen (US 2018/0032599), Kwon et al. (CN102439968B, hereinafter Kwon) and Hahn et al. (US 9646172).
Regarding claim 26 and 36: Baudoin as modified doesn’t explicitly disclose but Hahn teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain salt data from the memory based on the index value (Hahn - [Col. 2, Line 1-2]: A time period counter value may then be determined based on the requested time period );
generate the encryption key based on the index value and the at least one of the identifier or the temporal data (Hahn - [Col. 10, Line 5-7]: the collection server may generate an encryption key using the index value and a seed value for the current time period); and
encrypt the interlaced data using the encryption key and the salt data, the salt data comprising an alphanumeric character string (Hahn - [Col. 6, Line 60-64]: collection server 220 may also encrypt the index value for unencrypted data record 302 using generated encryption key 312. The time period counter value, encrypted index value, and encrypted data record may be linked and stored as an associated triple at data storage server 230. [Col. 10, Line 16-17]: the time period counter value used to encrypt the data in each row is also stored within the row,).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baudoin with Larsen, Kwon and Hahn so that encryption is performed using salt data. The modification would have allowed the system to be more secure.
Regarding claim 27 and 37: Baudoin as modified discloses: wherein:
the first data elements comprise an identifier and temporal data (Baudoin - [0037]: The headers 226 may include a from field identifying a sender, such as an email address of the sender, a to field identifying a recipient, such as an email address of the recipient, and/or a subject field indicating a subject of the messag);
However, Baudoin as modified doesn’t explicitly disclose but Hahn teaches:
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to compute the index value based on at least one of the identifier or the temporal data (Hahn - [Col. 2, Line 1-2]: A time period counter value may then be determined based on the requested time period).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baudoin with Larsen and Hahn so that counter value is determined based on time period. The modification would have allowed the system to be more dynamic and secure.
Claims 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudoin et al. (20170104731, hereinafter Baudoin) in view of Larsen (US 2018/0032599), Kwon et al. (CN102439968B, hereinafter Kwon) and Viola (US 11157912).
Regarding claim 29 and 39: Baudoin as modified doesn’t explicitly disclose but Viola teaches: wherein the second data elements comprise elements of textual content, and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain elements of scheme data from the memory, the scheme data characterizing a sequential disposition of the elements of textual content and the portions of the inquiry data within the interlaced data; and generate the interlaced data based on the textual content and the inquiry data in accordance with the scheme data (Viola - [Col. 5, Line 6-8]: inserting at least one marker into the transaction application according to a predefined protection scheme, inserting at least one detection agent at a marker position).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baudoin with Larsen, Kwon and Viola so that at least one marker is inserted into application based on the predefined scheme. The modification would have allowed the system to insert data based on predefined scheme.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baudoin et al. (20170104731, hereinafter Baudoin) in view of Larsen (US 2018/0032599), Kwon et al. (CN102439968B, hereinafter Kwon) and SHPUROV et al. (US 20210117553).
Regarding claim 31: Baudoin as modified doesn’t explicitly disclose but SHPUROV teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
determine that a structure or a composition of the inquiry data fails to correspond to an expected structure or composition (SHPUROV - [0025]: verification module 136 may verify interaction data 116 based on a determination that voice assistant application 104 represents a valid application program provisioned to client device 102 by provider system 130 (e.g., based on a determination that a structure or format of the application-specific cryptogram corresponds to an expected cryptogram structure or format); and
based on the determination that the structure or composition of the inquiry data fails to correspond to the expected structure or composition, perform operations that present an error message within the digital interface (SHPUROV - [0026]: If, for example, verification module 136 were unable to verify interaction data 116, executed voice assistant engine 132 may discard interaction data 116, and may generate an error message indicative of the failed verification of interaction data 116 … for presentation to user 101, e.g., via speaker 106B ).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Baudoin with Larsen. Kwon and SHPUROV so that the error message is generated and presented if the interaction data is not verified. The modification would have allowed the system to increase data security.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dhuse US 11474958 B2- Generating And Queuing System Messages With Priorities In A Storage Network
Scheiblauer US 2018/0336366 - Systems And Methods To Secure Personally Identifiable Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MENG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-8729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Lagor can be reached on (571) 270-5143. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MENG LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights